DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: larry on October 16, 2006, 10:49:37 PM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061016/ts_nm/security_trial_dc_4
Is this justice or obstruction of justice?
-
<<Koeltl, who cited Stewart's long service as a defense attorney as grounds for the relatively short prison sentence, allowed her to remain free pending appeal of her conviction.>>
She had a long professional life of service and good deeds and this was reflected in the sentence. The infraction was minor and the zeal of the prosecutors seemed more like witch-hunting hysteria than a search for justice. They should be ashamed of themselves. The judge put them in their place.
-
"Evidence in the case against Stewart included a call the lawyer made to a Reuters correspondent in Egypt in which she read a statement issue by the cleric saying he had withdrawn his support for the Islamic Group's cease-fire in Egypt. That correspondent was subpoenaed in the case."
Did her abetting help get anyone killed?
-
<<Did her abetting help get anyone killed?>>
Did anyone who abetted the U.S. invasion of Iraq help anyone get killed?
-
Evidence in the case against Stewart included a call the lawyer made to a Reuters correspondent in Egypt in which she read a statement issue by the cleric saying he had withdrawn his support for the Islamic Group's cease-fire in Egypt. That correspondent was subpoenaed in the case."
My Reply:
That was an unusual ploy for an attorney. I would like to know what her intent was for making the call. Stewartt just does not strike me as a terrorist type person. It looks to me like the prosecution manipulated the evidence to smear the defendant's lawyer.
-
<<Did her abetting help get anyone killed?>>
Did anyone who abetted the U.S. invasion of Iraq help anyone get killed?
Yes , mostly people we wanted to kill.
I would be such an abettor myself.
Is my question hard to answer?
-
<<Is my question hard to answer?>>
Evidently not, since you just answered it yourself.
If her phone call to Egypt resulted in anyone getting killed, they would be people who, in the service of the cause that she supports, should have been killed.
Just as you enthusiastically support the killing of the enemies of your cause, so she (I would presume) with equal enthusiasm would support the killing of the enemies of hers.
-
"Just as you enthusiastically support the killing of the enemies of your cause, so she (I would presume) with equal enthusiasm would support the killing of the enemies of hers."
I would expect my trial , were I ever to fall into the hands of the Al Quieda, to be short and the sentance would be to shorten my stature by a head.
Do you really consider her abettment amd mine to be equivelent?
-
<<Do you really consider her abettment amd mine to be equivelent?>>
I don't see much difference, frankly. Of course, your cause has a lot more innocent blood on its hands, but that's just due to their advanced technology. I'm sure hers could achieve equally impressive results, given the proper weaponry.
-
So if we had sentenced her to a much harsher sentance what would be your grounds for complaint?
-
<<So if we had sentenced her to a much harsher sentance what would be your grounds for complaint?>>
Lack of balance. She had a long record of helping the poor and the underprivileged and the people who might have gotten killed in Egypt due to her phone call were the supporters of a rotten U.S. puppet government torture state. Basically most of them would have probably deserved to die anyway. So she spends a professional lifetime helping the poor and the underprivileged and maybe abets the killing of a few scumbags, you gotta balance it all out as the judge undoubtedly did, and give her a modest sentence. I don't think you can ignore a lifetime of good work when you are sentencing for one relatively trivial misdeed.
-
<<So if we had sentenced her to a much harsher sentance what would be your grounds for complaint?>>
Lack of balance. She had a long record of helping the poor and the underprivileged and the people who might have gotten killed in Egypt due to her phone call were the supporters of a rotten U.S. puppet government torture state. Basically most of them would have probably deserved to die anyway. So she spends a professional lifetime helping the poor and the underprivileged and maybe abets the killing of a few scumbags, you gotta balance it all out as the judge undoubtedly did, and give her a modest sentence. I don't think you can ignore a lifetime of good work when you are sentencing for one relatively trivial misdeed.
If I fell into the hands of Al Queda I would argue that those killings I have abetted were scumbags ?
This would lighten my sentence?
-
<<If I fell into the hands of Al Queda I would argue that those killings I have abetted were scumbags ?
<<This would lighten my sentence?>>
Considering that you abetted the killing of nineteen-year-old girls, mothers, toddlers, housewives, holy men, teachers, etc., I don't think calling the victims scumbags would lighten your sentence in an al Qaeda court or even in your own country. Many of the al Qaeda fighters have seen the results of those killings up close and personal and recognized the charred and mangled remains of wives, girlfriends, mothers and daughters - - in fact, that was probably a major motivation to them becoming al Qaeda in the first place - - and I don't think you'd be doing yourself any favours.
-
So you don't see equivelency at all , the Al Queda guys I help shoot are outraged nice guys .
The Egyptions she helped get shot did not include any innocent bystanders.
She should be in Al Queda territory getting the rewards she has earned and I should be getting shot , scum bag that I am.
-
The al Qaeda fanatics are outraged guys, "nice guys" was your description, not mine.
Both sides kill innocent bystanders, yours a lot more then theirs.
And I think you're a little too hard on yourself, I'd never consider you a scumbag, just woefully misinformed and taken advantage of by the real scumbags, who I hope to help you recognize as such one day.
-
Neverthe less my punishment , should I ever fall into the hands of the Al Queda , would definately be death.
I wonder if the Prosicutors could appeal the sentance of this lawyer?
-
<<So if we had sentenced her to a much harsher sentance what would be your grounds for complaint?>>
Lack of balance. She had a long record of helping the poor and the underprivileged and the people who might have gotten killed in Egypt due to her phone call were the supporters of a rotten U.S. puppet government torture state. Basically most of them would have probably deserved to die anyway. So she spends a professional lifetime helping the poor and the underprivileged and maybe abets the killing of a few scumbags, you gotta balance it all out as the judge undoubtedly did, and give her a modest sentence. I don't think you can ignore a lifetime of good work when you are sentencing for one relatively trivial misdeed.
Moral relativism at its quintessential worst :(
-
<<I wonder if the Prosicutors could appeal the sentance of this lawyer?>>
In the Toronto Star article reporting the sentence, the prosecutors were "considering" an appeal. I think the trial judge got it right the first time.
-
I concur with Sirs. Good ole moral relativism. I am sure the judge considered her many years of "good acts" in the decision.
She should go to jail for a long long time. It will also serve as an example to other traitors.
-
<<Good ole moral relativism.>>
Worked for Lt. Calley. And he didn't even have any prior good deeds.
With all due respect, your country RUNS on moral relativism. Terrorism is bad. Unless the terrorist is a Cuban exile and the victims were passengers on a Cuban airline. Torture and rape rooms are bad. Unless done by American proxies in secret prisons. United Nations resolutions must be upheld by force if necessary. Unless they apply to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. The list goes on. And on. And on.
Every time I hear one of you American conservatives spout off about "moral relativism" it's a bloody wonder I don't bust a gut laughing. Go easy on me. Please.
-
<<Good ole moral relativism.>>
Worked for Lt. Calley. And he didn't even have any prior good deeds.
With all due respect, your country RUNS on moral relativism. Terrorism is bad. Unless the terrorist is a Cuban exile and the victims were passengers on a Cuban airline. Torture and rape rooms are bad. Unless done by American proxies in secret prisons. United Nations resolutions must be upheld by force if necessary. Unless they apply to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. The list goes on. And on. And on.
Every time I hear one of you American conservatives spout off about "moral relativism" it's a bloody wonder I don't bust a gut laughing. Go easy on me. Please.
"...Just as you enthusiastically support the killing of the enemies of your cause, so she (I would presume) with equal enthusiasm would support the killing of the enemies of hers."
We don't need to go too easy on you , you can point out the mote in our eye as much as you want .
-
<<We don't need to go too easy on you , you can point out the mote in our eye as much as you want .>>
Thanks, I feel better already.
Hey, there's a mote in your eye.
-
<<Good ole moral relativism.>>Worked for Lt. Calley. And he didn't even have any prior good deeds.
With all due respect, your country RUNS on moral relativism. Terrorism is bad. Unless the terrorist is a Cuban exile and the victims were passengers on a Cuban airline. Torture and rape rooms are bad. Unless done by American proxies in secret prisons. United Nations resolutions must be upheld by force if necessary. Unless they apply to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. The list goes on. And on. And on.
Like Larry, you might have a leg to stand on if you actually had some valid references in the support of Terrorism by Americans vs support of 1 supposed terrorist. You might have a leg to stand on if you had widespread support of torture & rape at the hands of Americans vs some implied support via some 3rd hand proxie. You might have a leg to stand on if Israel had taken land simply to oppress its Arab neighbors vs taking it in defense of their very existance.
"Might" being the key word
-
<<Like Larry, you might have a leg to stand on if you actually had some valid references in the support of Terrorism by Americans vs support of 1 supposed terrorist. >>
Americans support terrorism wherever and whenever it suits them. The contras in Nicaragua, the Cuban exiles who blew an airliner out of the sky, the Taliban in Afghanistan (as long as they were killing Russians.) They don't call them "terrorists," of course. They call them "freedom fighters." I really don't know who they are fooling by this bullshit, except their own infinitely brainwashable couch potatoes who think that the MSM is really bringing them "news." They sure as hell didn't fool any of their victims, and they don't even fool most of the American people.
<<You might have a leg to stand on if you had widespread support of torture & rape at the hands of Americans vs some implied support via some 3rd hand proxie.>>
Implied support? I guess the fact that CIA aircraft actually transport the prisoners from Afghanistan and Iraq to the torture chambers is only "implied support" for the proxy torture. Unless you can prove where the fuel for the blowtorches comes from, it's not real support, I suppose.
<<You might have a leg to stand on if Israel had taken land simply to oppress its Arab neighbors vs taking it in defense of their very existance.>>
Funny how they defended their "very existence" from 1948 till 1968 without the West Bank land but once their armies invaded it, it suddenly became necessary to their "very existence." That's hilarious.
P.S. Nobody's buying it. Least of all the Arabs who are being pushed off their land by settlers, shot at as they try to harvest their crops and denied access to maternity hospitals when their women are in labour. I have no problem accepting that millions of Americans like you are taken in by this simplistic bullshit, because that's all that your MSM and your sold-out politicians will tell you, but if you really think that the actual victims of your aggression, your torture and your massacres are so dumb that they will believe it too, you are in for a very rude awakening.
-
Since my name was mentioned in your last post, in a reply to Michaeltee, I guess I can reply. Your request for me and others to produce sources of rape, torture and unlawful detentions is stupid. The sources provided over the past three years is why the approval rating of the Republican controlled congress is at 20% and the approval rating for the president is at 36%.
everyone in the country seemingly got the message except for you sirs. The deference between me and you, sirs, is I'm not afraid to read a conservative publication or watch a conservative news program. I cannot disagree with them if I don't know what they are saying. You disagree with Democrats because Rush Limbaugh or some other hack told you to. It is clear from your post you no longer think for your self, all you do is repeat the conservative spin. You are very close to being brain dead.
-
Since my name was mentioned in your last post, in a reply to Michaeltee, I guess I can reply. Your request for me and others to produce sources of rape, torture and unlawful detentions is stupid.
Your name was used not in requesting examples of rape, but in requesting examples of the continued accusations you keep making. The "stupid" aspect is in expecting everyne to believe yours and Tee's say so, minus any credible facts or evidence to support the asanine dren you and Tee keep claiming. As I already asked earlier, does credibility not matter to you folks, in the least?? Just National Enquirer-like accusatory headlines??
-
It appears the debate of two threads, U.S. Attorney Gets 28 Months and Military Commissions Act of 2006, have merged. My comments about the Military Commissions Act were not accusations, they were reports and I did post a source that infact states that the act in effect does nullify the writ of habeas corpus for U.S. Citizens. In my commentary I said that the policies of the imperial president, George W. Bush now rival the policies of other dictatorships of the World War II period. The act was signed into law only yesterday, and there are sure to be battles in the Supreme Court over it. I'll keep you posted, the National Inquire does not report on this type stories.
-
I did post a source that infact states that the act in effect does nullify the writ of habeas corpus for U.S. Citizens.
You posted a link to a search that returns a list of liberal blogs.
Hardly what most people would consider a "source" in a debate.
-
...I did post a source that infact states that the act in effect does nullify the writ of habeas corpus for U.S. Citizens...
Hardly. Try posting actual stories/reports of ACTUAL events. Not searches of BLOGs that simply repeat your "say so". If there' was just 1 example of this supposed egregious throwing folks into jail for simply bashing Bush, the Mainscream media would pounce on it like a lion to a 3 legged calf. Care for a do-over yet?
-
Actually, I posted many sources:
US Senate votes to rollback habeas corpus, use torture, and provide immunity for US officials from torture prosecutionSeptember 29, 2006, the US Senate agreed to the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which gives US President George Bush unprecedented power to detain and try people as part of their “War on Terror.†President Bush is then expected to sign the Act into law. Broadly, the new Act does 3 things:
Strips the right of detainees to habeas corpus (the traditional right of detainees to challenge their detention);
Gives the US President the power to detain indefinitely anyone—US or foreign nationals, from within the US, and from abroad—it deems to have provided material support to anti-US hostilities, and even use secret and coerced evidence (i.e. through use of torture) to try detainees who will be held in secret US military prisons;
Gives US officials immunity from prosecution for torturing detainees that were captured before the end of 2005 by US military and CIA.
The bill was passed by the Senate sixty five votes in favor, thirty four against. Twelve Democrats joined the Republican majority. The House passed virtually the same legislation a few days earlier on Wednesday, 27 September.
The New York Times noted the far-reaching powers the Act will give the president, and other top officials observing that, “Rather than reining in the formidable presidential powers … asserted since Sept. 11, 2001, the law gives some of those powers a solid statutory foundation. In effect it allows the president to identify enemies, imprison them indefinitely and interrogate them—albeit with a ban on the harshest treatment—beyond the reach of the full court reviews traditionally afforded criminal defendants and ordinary prisoners.†Furthermore, not only does the Act allow the president to determine the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions, “it also strips the courts of jurisdiction to hear challenges to his interpretation.â€
This can have far-reaching consequences. For example, Amnesty International says the legislation will lead to violations of international law and standards and accuses the US Congress of “failing human rights†by voting for this Act and says it “deeply regrets that Congress failed to resist this executive pressure and instead has given a green light for violations of the USA’s international obligations.â€
The international human rights organization expands on the above 3 points (see previous link) and is summarized here:
Striping habeas corpus and other fundamental rights
On this issue, Amnesty international notes that the Act will:
Strip the US courts of jurisdiction to hear or consider habeas corpus appeals challenging the lawfulness or conditions of detention of anyone held in US custody as an “enemy combatant.â€
Prohibit any person from invoking the Geneva Conventions or their protocols as a source of rights in any action in any US court.
Permit civilians captured far from any battlefield to be tried by military commission rather than civilian courts, contradicting international standards and case law.
Limit the right of charged detainees to be represented by counsel of their choosing.
-
And the example of someone (ANYONE for that matter) being thrown into prison for simply bashing Bush is...........................where again?? ??? Free speech being "under attack" you claimed. By all means, SHOW US
-
There are more than 1,800,000 sites on the internet, like I said Take your pick. I process hundreds of baker acts every year. I see things you guys don't even know exist. The level of police brutality in this country is sickening and the domestic policy of fascism is a fact that the major medias are afraid to fully expose. I live in the real World and you apparently live in the World of CNN. You know what they Say about mushrooms?
-
There are more than 1,800,000 sites on the internet, like I said Take your pick. I process hundreds of baker acts every year. I see things you guys don't even know exist. The level of police brutality in this country is sickening and the domestic policy of fascism is a fact that the major medias are afraid to fully expose. I live in the real World and you apparently live in the World of CNN. You know what they Say about mushrooms?
Then by all means, you pick 1, if there's all these hundreds of thousands of sites. Pick 1 example of someone (ANYONE for that matter) being thrown into prison for simply bashing Bush
Ball in your court
-
sirs: <<And the example of someone (ANYONE for that matter) being thrown into prison for simply bashing Bush is...........................where again?? Free speech being "under attack" you claimed. By all means, SHOW US>>
These right-wing bullshit artists are so fucking brazen in their lying that no matter how many examples you give them, no matter how many sources you post, they will always come back and have the God-damn balls to post their usual drivel that "without a shred of evidence, Tee claims . . . " and similar dreck to the sample I just posted above in red.
<<By all means, SHOW US . . .>>
Yeah, OK. Here. I'll show you. (Much good it'll do us, in one more post, they'll be claiming again that "the left" makes up wild stuff without a shred of evidence.) But here, it's easy to show you, what's hard is to get you to admit the truth.
http://www.warresisters.org/RNC_CD.htm
Criticisms of Arrest Tactics and Detentions. Download PDFs of the following major investigative articles critical of police tactics: “Lawyers' Group Sues City Over Arrests of Protesters,†New York Times (Oct. 8, 2004); “Arrests at GOP Convention Are Criticized,†Washington Post (Sept. 20, 2004); “Activists Arrested During GOP Convention Testify Against City, Police,†The New Standard (Sept. 19, 2004); “City Arrest Tactics,†New York Times (Sept. 17, 2004); “Hundreds Detained During RNC Protests,†Rock River Times, IL (Sept. 14, 2004). On Sept. 15 NY City Councilman Bill Perkins held a hearing on the RNC arrests and detentions. Download a PDF of establishment media stories on the hearings (collected by IndyMedia).
I remember the press accounts, actually. Police arrested HUNDREDS of protestors at the RNC in August of 2004 in NYC. Try to deny that. You don't have to follow the links unless you're interested, the facts of the story are already well known. Not that it won't be denied.
Question for sirs in particular: Don't you have any shame at all? To lie and say that things we all know have happened and are happening on a massive basis aren't happening? Do you think you are going to fool somebody into thinking that something they know happened didn't happen, because you say it didn't happen? What exactly are you trying to accomplish by denying facts that everybody knows are true? Inquiring minds want to know.
-
sirs: <<And the example of someone (ANYONE for that matter) being thrown into prison for simply bashing Bush is...........................where again?? Free speech being "under attack" you claimed. By all means, SHOW US>>
These right-wing bullshit artists are so fucking brazen in their lying that no matter how many examples you give them, no matter how many sources you post, they will always come back and have the God-damn balls to post their usual drivel that "without a shred of evidence, Tee claims . . . " and similar dreck to the sample I just posted above in red. Yeah, OK. Here. I'll show you. (Much good it'll do us, in one more post, they'll be claiming again that "the left" makes up wild stuff without a shred of evidence.) But here, it's easy to show you, what's hard is to get you to admit the truth.
http://www.warresisters.org/RNC_CD.htm
Who the hell is denying that protesters getting completely out of hand aren't arrested for obviously disturbing the peace & for unlawful protesting. Try some examples of people who are simply rounded up for Bashing Bush. that is the current issue & claim at hand. Come on, I dare ya. There'd be your example of "attack on free speech"
Ball in your court
-
Why do you insist on embarrassing yourself? Don't you know how EASY it is to find this stuff?
From the Washington Post:
http://www.warresisters.org/washingtonpost_9-20-04.pdf
washingtonpost.com
Arrests at GOP Convention Are Criticized
Many in N.Y. Released Without Facing Charges
By Michael Powell and Michelle Garcia
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, September 20, 2004; Page A01
But farther downtown on the same day, [Aug. 31, 2004] the War Resisters League, a decades-old pacifist group, was readying a peaceful march from Ground Zero to Madison Square Garden,
where it intended to conduct a civil disobedience "die in."
A video provided by the New York Civil Liberties Union shows police commanders
laying out the ground rules: As long as protesters did not block traffic, they would not
get arrested during the walk north. (No permit is required for a march on a sidewalk as
long as protesters leave space for other pedestrians to pass.) Within a block or two,
however, the video shows marchers lined up on the sidewalk, far from an intersection, as a police officer announces on a bullhorn: "You're under arrest."
"They came with batons, bicycles, they came with netting," said the Rev. G. Simon
Harak, a Jesuit priest. "The kind of forces you expect to be turned on terrorists was
unleashed on us."
Police arrested 200 people, saying they had blocked the sidewalk.
About the same time Tuesday, several other groups of protesters started walking two
abreast from Union Square, the city's historic protest soapbox, to Madison Square
Garden. However, several demonstrators say -- and photographs show -- that police
soon stopped them, asked them to raise their hands and arrested them.
-
Speaking of embarrasing one's self, can you show us where they were imprisoned for Bashing Bush, vs the city's/Police's claim they were indeed blocking the sidewalks?? (again in reference to protesters getting out of hand) Again, that is the crux of the issue at hand. I mean, it would really bolster yours & Larry's currently pathetic arguement if you could find JUST 1 FRELLIN EXAMPLE of the Fed rounding up some devoted Brass-like Bush basher.
I'm trying to help ya here, but you insist on making this about mass protesting. The claim is "attack on free speech" Dealing with mass protesters at mass rallies is not "attacking free speech". Dealing with the likes of folks like Larry, Lanya, Brass, Tee, Terra, etc, and shutting them up would be "an attack on free speech". Do you have 1.........just 1 example??
-
Here's another article, later on, showing what happened to all those charges against <<protesters [who got] completely out of hand . . . arrested for obviously disturbing the peace & for unlawful protesting. >>
Scratching my head, wondering where do you get this outrageous bullshit, these total fantasies, products of diseased, drugged-out Republican hacks like Rush Limbaugh? Who plants these falsehoods in your brain so firmly that you not only believe them but rush to deride anyone who tries to tell you what crap it all is?
Turns out, not only do the cops LIE THEIR FUCKING ASSES OFF about the "wild, out of control" demonstrators, they actually doctor their own videotapes to falsely convict them [but are too fucking dumb to destroy all copies of the original tapes.] Just read the story, sirs:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/apr2005/renc-a19.shtml
Videos expose false arrests at 2004 Republican Convention protests in New York
By Peter Daniels
19 April 2005
Seven months after the mass arrests of over 1,800 protesters at the Republican Convention in New York City last summer, 91 percent of the nearly 1,700 cases that have been concluded have resulted in acquittals or the dismissal of charges. Four hundred cases were dismissed after video recordings made by volunteer observers and others showed that there was no reason for the arrests, the New York Times reported last week. Some of the videos also exposed false testimony by the police.
In the case of Dennis Kyne, arrested on the steps of the New York Public Library last August, police officer Matthew Wohl testified at trial last December that “we picked him up and we carried him while he squirmed and screamed. I had one of his legs because he was kicking and refusing to walk on his own.â€
Wohl’s colorful description was apparently made up. Kyne’s attorney showed the court a videotape showing his client walking down the steps of the library, not being carried and not kicking. The tape in addition showed that Wohl, who also signed complaints against four other protesters arrested at the time, was not present during any of the arrests. The charges against Kyne were immediately dropped. Four months later, the Manhattan District Attorney’s office now says it is reviewing Wohl’s account, but the cop is not expected to face any penalty for his false testimony, which in all likelihood is part of the police department’s modus operandi in cases of mass arrests.
In another case, which took far longer to reach a conclusion, Alexander Dunlop was arrested on Second Avenue and charged with resisting arrest. Dunlop said he was not even a participant in the protest, but was seized by the police as part of a tactic of clearing the streets and intimidating demonstrators. Only recently did Dunlop discover that the official police videotape, which was to be introduced as evidence against him, had been edited to remove images that showed he never resisted arrest. A volunteer found a more complete version of the tape, and prosecutors agreed earlier this month to drop the charges, claiming improbably that a technician had accidentally cut just those parts of the tape that exonerated the defendant.
These two cases are only the most prominent among many. New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) president Donna Lieberman said that videotape evidence had led to the dropping of charges against 227 people arrested at an August 31 demonstration at the World Trade Center site. “The camera is a powerful tool that has enabled us not just to exonerate individuals, but hold police accountable and document serious wrongdoings,†said Lieberman. Much of the video was assembled by I-Witness Video, a project that coordinated filming by hundreds of volunteers and worked with the National Lawyers Guild to reveal what actually took place during the arrests.
As far as New York City’s billionaire Republican Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly are concerned, however, the latest revelations are no cause for embarrassment. Bloomberg told the press that the police “did a spectacular job...We had seven or eight hundred thousand people marching and only a few hundred got arrested.â€
Kelly even claimed that the videos “are very beneficial to us†because they supposedly show police restraint. No doubt the police were instructed to avoid merciless beatings (although there are numerous accounts of less obvious abuses, particularly in the treatment after arrest), but their discipline was for the purpose of carrying out an unconstitutional suppression of the right of free speech and assembly. Christopher Dunn of the NYCLU declared, “As the videos demonstrate, hundreds of people were arrested during the convention while engaged in entirely lawful protest activity. The fact is, the department used mass arrests as a tactic to stop demonstrations. If the mayor wants to defend that, that’s his prerogative. We think it’s indefensible.â€
In a related development, a legal case arising from the conditions under which those arrested at the Republican Convention were held was settled last week, with the city paying $231,000 in legal fees and a small fine, in exchange for protesters dropping charges of criminal contempt against the city. The settlement gives 108 plaintiffs a token amount of $150 each, or a total of $16,200, with the rest going to legal fees to the Legal Aid Society and the National Lawyers Guild. Those arrested and held incommunicado for 48 hours and longer under filthy and abusive conditions can still file civil suits, and 570 notices of claim totalling $859 million have been filed.
The case arose after State Supreme Court Justice John Cataldo found the city in contempt for failing to bring those arrested into court within 24 hours, or else releasing them. The tactic was a transparent attempt to intimidate dissent and keep protesters off the street during the Republican Convention. “It was the worst performance by the police I had ever seen in my 30 years,†said one Legal Aid Society lawyer. “The courts were fully staffed and were essentially empty of defendants.†With the contempt charge due to come up within days, City Hall apparently decided to settle rather than generate additional publicity about the techniques of the police department in a year in which Bloomberg is running for reelection.
The mayor has little to fear from any of his prospective Democratic opponents on this issue, however. None of them, including City Council President Gifford Miller or former Bronx Borough President Fernando Ferrer, made any comment on the latest revelations of police repression and official misconduct.
The mass arrests last summer were by no means an exceptional occurrence in connection with mass protest in New York City. In the past 10 to 15 years, there has been a major shift in police strategy. While mouthing phrases about guarding the right to protest peacefully, the authorities have steadily worked to make it difficult and sometimes virtually impossible. In the mass demonstrations called in February 2003, on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, hundreds of thousands were prevented from participating and numerous arrests were made.
The fact is—despite the sanctimonious claims of politicians like Bloomberg—the rights of assembly and protest are far more circumscribed today in New York than they are in many other parts of the world. Bloomberg’s continuing defense of the police conduct last summer is an indication that the only lesson the authorities will draw from the latest revelations is the need to cover their tracks more carefully in the future.
-
Off course, a delusional neo-con, would not find anything wrong with rounding up citizens by the hundreds and putting them in jail for protesting, to be . Off course a true neo-con would not question the Bush Administrations "New And Improved Version Nazi Policies." Off course a true neo-con would see nothing wrong with swat teams and special ops, they have a new identity, they're not gestapo anymore.
Last week, I stood in my front yard and watched the helicopters buzzing overhead. I could see dozens of police cars parked on the road. I watched a swat team perform its military maneuvers. They were after one man. They fired 110 rounds at him and hit him with 68 rounds. The man had killed a cop and the Gestapo mentality was put on parade as a result. The neo-con believe America is a safer place under the neo-con policies and practices. The neo-con want to convert the conservatives and they did just that to George W. Bush. Enjoy the illusion while you can. The days of the neo-con coming to a showdown with the people of America. A voters revolt is just days away.
-
Here's another article, later on, showing what happened to all those charges...Turns out, not only do the cops LIE THEIR FUCKING ASSES OFF about the "wild, out of control" demonstrators, they actually doctor their own videotapes to falsely convict them [but are too fucking dumb to destroy all copies of the original tapes.] Just read the story,
So, your big beef is that the local cops lied.........OMG, let's impeach Bush
Seriously though, either you or Larry ever going to address the question/claim?? You know, the part about Bush/Fed "attacking free speech"? Don't worry, I won't hold my breath
-
<< . . . can you show us where they were imprisoned for Bashing Bush, vs the city's/Police's claim they were indeed blocking the sidewalks?? >>
Sure. The article I just posted - - 91% of the charges were dropped. The videos used against them were faked. The police lied (which was exposed because the dumb fucking cops were too stupid to destroy the original copies of the tapes they doctored.) So - - WARNING! - - this calls for a little logic and reasoning, sirs, let's see if you can follow it:
The police claim these demonstrators were blocking the sidewalk. The demonstrators deny it. The police build their case up with faked videotapes but the real ones are found which prove the police were lying.
NOW: As between the demonstrators who deny blocking the sidewalks and the cops who say they were (but dropped charges against 91% of the 1700 people arrested) who ya gonna believe?
(a) the authorities who first charged the demonstrators with blocking sidewalks, then arrested them and then backtracked by not prosecuting AND faked videotapes to convict them AND were caught lying when the original tapes surfaced? or (b) the demonstrators, who always maintained that they were innocent and never backtracked on it, who never faked any videotapes to prove their case and were never caught lying about what happened?
(That was a rhetorical question. sirs, of course, believes . . . the POLICE!!! Naturally. sirs always believes the police. Becasue they never lie. It's really simple in sirs' simple little world. Police never lie, anti-American unpatriotic demonstrators always do. Don't need no videos, tapes, nuthin. And don't ever - - ever! - - confuse him with fact or logic.)
-
<<So, your big beef is that the local cops lied.........OMG, let's impeach Bush
<<Seriously though, either you or Larry ever going to address the question/claim?? You know, the part about Bush/Fed "attacking free speech"? Don't worry, I won't hold my breath >>
Are you totally insane? I just showed you a case where almost 2,000 Americans were arrested and locked up for expressing anti-Bush opinions on the lying pretext that they were "blocking sidewalks" and you are asking for an example of just one person thrown in the slammer for Bush-bashing?
I've just given you almost TWO THOUSAND EXAMPLES of people going to jail for Bush-bashing. And just as I predicted, you are asking, "So? Where is your example?"
I don't get it, sirs. Who exactly do you think you are fooling here?
-
http://www.watchblog.com/republicans/archives/004171.html
The new sedition act.
-
Just another touch of surrealistic humour. "Seriously, though"
sirs actually begins one of his insane surrealistic arguments with the words, "Seriously though."
No, really:
<<Seriously though, either you or Larry ever going to address the question/claim?? [the question being, where is one example of just one person put in jail for "Bush-bashing"] You know, the part about Bush/Fed "attacking free speech"? >>
1700 or 1900 people attempting to protest against Bush (can't remember the exact number) thrown in the slammer for "blocking the sidewalk" in a BLATANT case of police lying, and here is sirs still asking for a single example of this happening anywhere in America. "Seriously though" I can't believe I'm even engaging in a dialogue like this.
Seriously though . . . I'm gonna get some sleep.
-
Why is Ted Rall still loose?
There are a lot of people who have been uncomplimentary to the President , in print even.
How effectively are they being repressed?
Arrests at demonstrations are de rigueur are they not?
-
1700 or 1900 people attempting to protest against Bush (can't remember the exact number) thrown in the slammer for "blocking the sidewalk" in a BLATANT case of police lying, and here is sirs still asking for a single example of this happening anywhere in America. "Seriously though" I can't believe I'm even engaging in a dialogue like this.
See Tee, this is where yours (& Larry's) rants & reality go their seperate ways. Your perseverating "claims" keep getting torpedoed by reality. People who're protesting and getting completely out of control by blocking traffic or getting "non-peaceful" is NOT having their 1st amendment rights attacked when they get arrested. Local cops who lie when they believe that folks are unlawfully protesting & obstructing is NOT the Bush administration "attacking free speech" Is Danny Glover behind bars? Harry Belafonte? Al Franken & the entire contingent of Air America? You? THERE would be your example
Seriously though . . . I'm gonna get some sleep.
Probably the best train of thought you've had all night, Tee
-
<<People who're protesting and getting completely out of control by blocking traffic or getting "non-peaceful" is NOT having their 1st amendment rights attacked when they get arrested. >>
No, of course not. But then I was never talking about those people. Why are you talking about them?
<<Local cops who lie when they believe that folks are unlawfully protesting & obstructing is NOT the Bush administration "attacking free speech" >>
Uh, I believe your challenge was to find one single example of somebody locked up for "Bush bashing." I found you almost 2,000 examples from one single day in New York City.
So now you want to change your own challenge? Make that "Locked up BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ITSELF for Bush-bashing?" Sorry, that's not how I play the game. I like a game where the goal-posts stay in the same place all the time.
If I found guys locked up by the Bush administration, you'd just move the goal posts again - - ask me to find one locked up by Bush personally - - physically grabbed off the streets by Bush with his own two hands, physically locked in his little cell by Bush, who puts the key in his own pants pocket and takes it back to the White House with him.
Thanks, but no thanks, sirs. You issued your challenge, I met your challenge. Thousands of people have been locked up for Bush-bashing. Few if any of them were blocking anything. End of story.
-
I want to be fair to sirs. My last reply was kind of tongue-in-cheek. sirs could say (he won't, though, because he can never admit to a mistake) that he worded his challenge incorrectly, he MEANT to say, "Show me where the Bush administration has locked up somebody for criticizing Bush," so I'll say it for him.
OK, that's a little bit harder to do. Primarily because the Bush administration doesn't have the responsibility for keeping the streets of America clear of riff-raff such as "Bush-bashers."
Also it's actually a red herring. If political dissent is imperilled, it won't be all forms of political dissent. Bush-bashing, for example, would be something that the new laws would tend to leave alone because it's too much of a red-flag issue, too OBVIOUS a loss of a political right.
What would most likely be punishable by law would be the type of free exchange of opinions that we see in this group, for example - - the right to say that Osama bin Laden's actions might have some justification, that America's attack on Iraq was criminal, that North Korea has the right to arm itself against America. THOSE are the opinions that I would expect would be endangered by the Bush program, not the opinion that Bush is a lying little shit with an apalling amount of innocent blood on his hands.
-
Good thing I didn't hold my breath. Nice back pedaling BTW
-
"...Last week, I stood in my front yard and watched the helicopters buzzing overhead. I could see dozens of police cars parked on the road. I watched a swat team perform its military maneuvers. They were after one man. They fired 110 rounds at him and hit him with 68 rounds. The man had killed a cop and the Gestapo mentality was put on parade as a result. "
Cop killing CANNOT be condoned or anarchy reigns, neocons or not. I see nothnig wrong with drawing a line in the sand on cop killing. I believe this approach has been condoned for years, well before GWB as born. How is this Gestapo-like?
-
<<Good thing I didn't hold my breath. Nice back pedaling BTW>>
Fair's fair, sirs.
Although your question, as I rephrased it, is really bullshit. The administration can pass legislation penalizing free speech, but the enforcement in most cases will fall to local police forces - - as for example, street demonstrations. ANY street demonstrator will be arrested by local police, so no matter what the Bush legislation does to restrict free speech, if you ask me to find someone arrested by the Bush administration for exercizing freedom of speech, it's a useless search.
Besides which, the laws are relatively new. There won't be any examples of their abuse until further on down the road. It's like being present in the first few years of the Third Reich, when Hitler has just passed the Nuremburg Racial Laws, and Hitler's apologists, just like you today, are asking, "So, show me one case of a Jew who has been arrested and tortured because of these laws." Well of course, in the beginning, just after the laws were passed, there were NO cases.
sirs, those laws aren't passed for nothing. They provide powers and those powers, presumably, are meant to be used. So nobody is going to fall for your phony bullshit challenges of "Show me who was arrested." The laws speak for themselves. Unless you would like to admit that Bush is a clown who wastes the time of Congress passing legislation that is never intended to be used.
-
Facts are facts Tee. My apologies when they keep getting in the way of a good predisposed Bush is Evil, America is evil rant. As it's been made painfully clear, perhaps when you (or Larry) can actually demonstrate how Bush is "attacking free speech", complete with the Gestapo-like rounding up of the likes of Air America, Soros and Streisand, then you might actually enter the age of credibility once again.
We shall all wait patiently
-
Well of course, in the beginning, just after the laws were passed, there were NO cases.
Actually, within days of the announcement of the racial purity laws in 1935, a number of jewish businesses were seized for "aryanization".
-
<<Facts are facts Tee. My apologies when they keep getting in the way of a good predisposed Bush is Evil, America is evil rant.>>
Well, sirs, it's been abundantly proven how Bush has lied America into a war and kept it in the war by piling more lies onto the original. The "reasons" for being there, for example, seem to change from month to month - - as each "reason" is exposed for the pitiful absurdity that it is, and the smirking chimp's credibility is no longer maintainable, a new lie is invented to hold onto as much as remains of his rapidly shrinking base. If war is evil and lies are evil, then lying to get a country into a war is evil and so Bush is evil. If torture is evil and Bush seeks laws that permit him to torture his prisoners, once again, Bush is evil. This is so basic that it really requires little exposition, except to those who are bent on denying the obvious.
So I don't think you need to apologize for your "facts" getting in the way of a good "Bush is Evil" rant - - first of all, they aren't facts (quite the contrary) and they don't get in the way of a painfully obvious truth, much as you wish they could.
As far as my alleged "America is Evil" rants, I don't think I ever said America is evil. All I did was shine a little light on what your great country has been up to since the end of the Second World War, so people can draw their own conclusions as to how those actions should be characterized.
<<As it's been made painfully clear, perhaps when you (or Larry) can actually demonstrate how Bush is "attacking free speech">>
Larry has done a fine job of posting a link to the text of a statute that attacks freedom of speech. If you can't read or understand that text, if you can't figure out how that statute can inhibit or penalize the exercise of free speech, then I would say that is your problem, there is nothing that I or anyone else in the group can do to get you to admit that - - in all simplicity - - the statute says what it says and permits what it permits.
<< . . . complete with the Gestapo-like rounding up of the likes of Air America, Soros and Streisand, then you might actually enter the age of credibility once again.>>
Well, once again, it is not for you to establish the highest possible bar for attacking freedom of speech (Gestapo round-ups) and then claim that any action falling short of that is not an attack on freedom of speech. That is an absurd argument and probably no adult mind would fall for it. I really don't think even you yourself are stupid enough to be convinced by it. Obviously there can be infringements of freedom of speech that fall short of the Nazi "gold standard" for shutting down freedom of speech, but are nevertheless genuine infringements of freedom of speech, just as there can be football players who will never win the Heisemann Trophy but are nevertheless football players.
<<We shall all wait patiently>>
For what? For you to start making serious arguments in support of your ludicrous positions, and abandon the bullshit and the cheap tricks that don't even fool a 12-year-old? That takes a LOT of patience.
-
<<Actually, within days of the announcement of the racial purity laws in 1935, a number of jewish businesses were seized for "aryanization".>>
That's nit-picking par excellence.
When I was referring to the consequences of the Nuremburg Racial Laws, I was not referring to racially-determined property confiscation. Canada and the U.S.A. did pretty much the same thing to Japanese-Canadians and Japanese-Americans during the war. If confiscation of property was the worst atrocity the Germans ever committed or even the worst consequences of the Nuremburg Laws, the Nuremburg Laws would not even figure as an example in anybody's argument.
The truly evil consequences of the Nuremburg Racial Laws (the arrests, the concentration camps, the tortures, the killings) took place in gradual stages after the laws were enacted and the worst of them only after the invasion of Russia in 1941. Until then, it was slow, step-by-step incrementalism. A few individuals here, a few there. A German, unless he had personal friends who were Jewish, might not have noticed anything at all. The sirs of Nazi Germany would have had plenty of time to ask, "So? Where are all the horrible predicted consequences of these laws?" And in fact, if you follow the public debate of those times, that's pretty much how it played out - - anguished Jewish accusations, "outraged" German denials.
-
<<Cop killing CANNOT be condoned or anarchy reigns, neocons or not.>>
Anarchy already reigns when a bunch of fucking cops take it upon themselves to be judge, jury and executioner. That cop-killer could have had a lawful defence (insanity, self-defence.) NOBODY appointed those goons the right to take his life by short-circuiting all the guarantees that the rule of law provides, the guarantees that thousands of Englishmen and Americans were willing to give their lives for.
<< I see nothnig wrong with drawing a line in the sand on cop killing. >>
Well, I sure as hell do. Why is the life of a fucking cop suddenly more important than my life or the lives of my family? You must have a pretty low sense of self-esteem if you think your life and the lives of your family are worth less than the life of a fucking cop. Incredible. I bet you believe in the superior worth of military lives too. Like the life of a Lynndie England is worth more than the life of your mother. Good luck with that.
<<I beleive this approach has been condoned for years, well before GWB as born. How is this Gestapo-like?>>
LOL. Better you should ask, how is this NOT Gestapo-like? The man was a citizen, sirs. He had certain rights. The right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. The right not to be punished for anything save in accordance with the law. The right to a fair trial. The right to have all mitigating factors considered prior to the imposition of his sentence.
You guys are scary as all hell. You obviously have no regard whatsoever for any of the basic rights enshrined in Anglo-American law since the Magna Carta and guaranteed forever in the U.S. Constitution. You'd throw them away in a second to curry favour with the police or the military or anybody who goose-steps around in a uniform and shiny black boots. You are exactly the building blocks that fascism needs and probably in the end will once again get.
You are living proof of the theory that the greatest threat to freedom always comes from within.
-
Well, sirs, it's been abundantly proven how Bush has lied America into a war and kept it in the war by piling more lies onto the original. ........ yada, rant, blather
Still fantasizing again I see. And you don't even have the excuse of being overtly tired this time. Pity
-
When I was referring to the consequences of the Nuremburg Racial Laws, I was not referring to racially-determined property confiscation.
Well, that's what the laws provided.
The other "consequences" you mention are the consequences of other laws, passed later.
-
Cop killing CANNOT be condoned or anarchy reigns, neocons or not. I see nothing wrong with drawing a line in the sand on cop killing. I believe this approach has been condoned for years, well before GWB as born. How is this Gestapo-like?
Professor, I wish you could have been here to witness what took place. It is a real eye opener when you see armored personnel carriers deployed into your neighborhood, and law enforcement personell from five counties. It looked like a war zone. When the swat team radio the comand center that they had shot and killed the man, a cheer from the cops went up that could be heard from blocks away.
The media coverage of the shooting was clearly intended as a threat to all citzens. The message was designed to say, " We Are The Cops" and anyone who resit us will face the same treatment. Yes, this is Nazi-style law enforcement.
-
I would expect my trial , were I ever to fall into the hands of the Al Quieda, to be short and the sentance would be to shorten my stature by a head.
Do you really consider her abettment amd mine to be equivelent?
If I fell into the hands of Al Queda I would argue that those killings I have abetted were scumbags ?
This would lighten my sentence?
Are you suggesting we should base how we punish someone on how al-Qaeda would punish someone? Maybe you're not suggesting that, but I am having trouble understanding why how al-Qaeda might treat you has any bearing how the American courts should treat Lynne Stewart.
-
Cop killing CANNOT be condoned or anarchy reigns, neocons or not.
Doesn't that depend on the cops and the situation? Take Cory Maye: he was asleep; police burst into his home at night; he never heard the cops announce themselves; and to protect his daughter against an intruder, Cory Maye got his gun and shot a man he would not until later know was a cop. Are you going to tell me Cory Maye deserves to be gunned down?
-
<<Still fantasizing again [that Bush lied to get the American people behind his plan to invade Iraq] I see. And you don't even have the excuse of being overtly tired this time. Pity>>
sirs, you're probably gonna be the last guy in America to realize the plain obvious truth. Bush lied and by now most people know it. They don't need any excuses for what they know and I don't need any excuses for what I know.
But I have to admit - - I am curious. What's your excuse for your inablility to draw the most obvious conclusions from plain facts?
-
According to wikipedia, the Nuremburg laws (named for the Nazi Party rallies that took place in Nuremburg around the same time the laws were passed) were separate laws dealing with separate subjects. The two that from the article are most closely aligned with the rally were the law forbidding racial mixing and the law depriving Jews of their German citizenship. Following the article, it was impossible to determine which "Nuremburg law," if any, actually deprived the Jews of their property or even if any law was ever passed with that objective. Of course, Jews were being forced out of business by a variety of pressures, such as boycotts, fines, etc. and this might have been the result of a government policy which did not require specific legislation. Here's the article
The Nuremberg Laws were passed around the time of the great Nazi rallies at Nuremberg; on September 15, 1935 the "Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honor" was passed, preventing marriage between any Jew and non-Jew. At the same time, the "Reich Citizenship Law" was passed and was reinforced in November by a decree, stating that all Jews, even quarter- and half-Jews, were no longer citizens of their own country (their official title became "subjects of the state"). This meant that they had no basic citizens' rights, e.g., the right to vote. This removal of basic citizens' rights allowed harsher laws to be passed in the future against Jews. The drafting of the Nuremberg Laws is often attributed to Hans Globke. Globke had studied British attempts to 'order' its empire by creating hierarchical social orders.
In 1936, Jews were banned from all professional jobs, effectively preventing them having any influence in education, politics, higher education, and industry. There was now nothing to stop the anti-Jewish actions that spread across the Nazi-German economy.
After the "Night of the Long Knives," the SS became the dominant policing power in Germany. Heinrich Himmler was eager to please Hitler, and so willingly obeyed his orders. Since the SS had been Hitler's personal bodyguard, they were even more brutal and obedient to Hitler than the SA had been. They were also supported by the army, which was now more willing to comply with Hitler's decisions than when the SA had still existed.
Hitler now had more direct control over the government and political attitude to Jews in Nazi Germany. In the period 1937 to 1938, harsh new laws were implemented, and the segregation of Jews from the German "Aryan" population began. In particular, Jews were punished financially for their "race."
On March 1, 1938, government contracts could not be awarded to Jewish businesses. On September 30 of the same year, "Aryan" doctors could only treat "Aryan" patients. Provision of medical care to Jews was already hampered by the fact that Jews were banned from being doctors or having any professional jobs.
On August 17, Jews had to add "Israel" (males) or "Sarah" (females) to their names, and a large letter "J" was to be imprinted on their passports on October 5. On November 15, Jewish children were banned from going to public schools. By April 1939, nearly all Jewish companies had either collapsed under financial pressure and declining profits, or had been persuaded to sell out to the Nazi-German government, further reducing their rights as human beings; they were, in many ways, effectively separated from the German populace.
-
Slowly or rapidly , what is supposed to be the simularity to the here and now?
-
The two that from the article are most closely aligned with the rally were the law forbidding racial mixing and the law depriving Jews of their German citizenship.
It was the latter law. By the end of that year (law was passed on 1935/09/15) all public servant positions that were filled with Jews were required to have the Jews removed and replaced with "real" citizens.
In early 1936, they were also banned by an addition to that law from holding "professional" positions, so those who were, say, lawyers or doctors had their businesses taken away from them by the state.
This can be determined by reading the laws.
And this conversation came to this turn when I asked for the wording in the new law signed by Bush that eliminates habeas corpus. I have yet to see that quote presented here by those who purport it's existence.
-
sirs, you're probably gonna be the last guy in America to realize the plain obvious truth. Bush lied and by now most people know it. They don't need any excuses for what they know and I don't need any excuses for what I know.
Yet with that continued AMBE, the facts say otherwise. Go figure. Best you could do was point to some anti-Bush website and claim "see, there's your smoking gun for Bush lies". That'd be analogus to me pointing to the RNC as the end all to all facts as it relates to the truth of Bush. As long as it made you feel better though.
-
<<Yet with that continued AMBE, the facts say otherwise. Go figure. Best you could do was point to some anti-Bush website and claim "see, there's your smoking gun for Bush lies". >>
That WAS the smoking gun for Bush lies. All the lies collected in one place. The inferences unmistakeable that Bush lied repeatedly. As often as I dig up these sites, you will continue to simply deny their validity.
<<That'd be analogus to me pointing to the RNC >>
Whether you pointed to the RNC, the Bible, the Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas or the Communist Manifesto, my response would be the same - - I'd review the facts found in the source, affirm or deny them and see whether the conclusions were logical and made sense or not.
Your approach, on the other hand, is to skitter away in panic from any acknowledgment of the facts or logic of the "Bush Lied" web-sites and merely assert that the sites themselves are unworthy of belief for whatever silly reason you find handy - - they are "anti-Bush" or whatever. Well, I'm sorry sirs - - if you want to convince anyone that those sites are unreliable, you will have to show where they got their facts wrong or where their logic is faulty. Which you can't do for two reasons, (1) they got all their facts and logic right and (2) you never read the sites anyway.
<<As long as it made you feel better though. >>
Exposing the lies and bullshit of the conservative movement always makes me feel better, sirs, but more importantly, if it helps even one person avoid falling for that load of poisonous crap, it makes me feel like I've made a very small contribution to a much better world.
-
That WAS the smoking gun for Bush lies
No, it was a boat load of lies about Bush lies, or more accurately blatant distortions, whey they weren't outright lying
As often as I dig up these sites, you will continue to simply deny their validity.
When they come from obvious non-objective partisan sites, absolutely. You would to
I'd review the facts found in the source, affirm or deny them and see whether the conclusions were logical and made sense or not
:D I needed a good chuckle
Your approach, on the other hand, is to skitter away in panic from any acknowledgment of the facts or logic of the "Bush Lied" web-sites and merely assert that the sites themselves are unworthy of belief for whatever silly reason you find handy
Not even close. My "approach" is to demonstrate where lies about Bush lies, are in themselves lies. I use a plethora of reports, and conclusions from a myriad of bi-partsain commissions and inspectors assigned to assess the whole concept of how the intel was handled, WMD, etc.
Exposing the lies and bullshit of the conservative movement always makes me feel better, sirs, but more importantly, if it helps even one person avoid falling for that load of poisonous crap, it makes me feel like I've made a very small contribution to a much better world
LOL.....yea poniting to some National-Enquirer-like anti-Bush web site, as your "proof" of Bush lies, puts a smile on my face as well. By all means, continue
-
<<No, it was a boat load of lies about Bush lies, or more accurately blatant distortions, whey they weren't outright lying>>
LOL. More of same. sirs "proves" something is wrong by calling it a "boatload of lies" and leaving it at that. Convincing. Not.
<<When they [proof of Bush's lies] come from obvious non-objective partisan sites, absolutely [I simply deny their validity.] You would too.>>
Well, no, actually. I take a lot of time and trouble to demolish bullshit from conservative sites, line by line if I have to.
<<I needed a good chuckle>> [said after I pointed out that I review the facts found in the source, affirm or deny them and see whether the conclusions were logical and made sense or not]
Well that's understandable. If your standard debating tactic is just to deny every inconvenient fact as "a boatload of lies" I could see how you would find a more reasoned approach to be hilarious.
<<I use a plethora of reports, and conclusions from a myriad of bi-partsain commissions and inspectors assigned to assess the whole concept of how the intel was handled, WMD, etc.>>
Translation: I find whatever RNC/Heritage Foundation whitewash is currently on-line and paste it in, hoping desperately that nobody will ever bother to read it carefully and point out the absolute asininity of the whole thing.
<<LOL.....yea poniting to some National-Enquirer-like anti-Bush web site, as your "proof" of Bush lies, puts a smile on my face as well. >>
Translation: Hey I just found a new adjective (National-Enquirer-like) that I can slap onto any article on the web that provides irrefutable proof that Bush lied and I'm still not gonna have to answer any of those arguments at all.
-
More of same. sirs "proves" something is wrong by calling it a "boatload of lies" and leaving it at that. Convincing. Not.
Naaa, the convincing part is when you actually claim a Bush lie, I'm able to torpedo it out of the water with the actual facts. Done it many a time. I have no problem doing it some more. I get great pleasure out of myself
I take a lot of time and trouble to demolish bullshit from conservative sites, line by line if I have to.
Oh, I concede you absolutely get very wordy in your warped OPINIONS of why you believe the facts are not actually the facts. Your perfection of moral relatavism and rationalization is perhaps unmatched
Translation: I find whatever RNC/Heritage Foundation whitewash is currently on-line and paste it in, hoping desperately that nobody will ever bother to read it carefully and point out the absolute asininity of the whole thing.
ROFL, as opposed to finding 1 big nebulous Bush lied web site, and claim "taa daaaa" :D But to placate the masses, by all means, initiate another thread....title it, Bush lie on Iraq #1. Make it a goodie. Then when I have some time, either myself or any other rationally minded person, will yet again show it for the lie of an accusation that it is
-
A very large number of accusations is no more proven than a small number of accusations .
A huge Website of "Bushes Lies " can be just as incorrect as a single false accusation.
If you accept all accusations uncriticly because you want to beleive them , you do not judge well.
Why don't you pick your favoriate one or two "Bush Lies " and tell why you consider them to be genuine accusations ?
If you don't ,you just leave us free to pick OUR favoriate one or two gross distortions so that we can show them to be rediculous and discredit the whole website.
-
Do you suppose that a case could be made on the charges of blocking traffic?
(http://www.warresisters.org/images/indymedia_die-in_8-31-04b.jpg)
(http://www.warresisters.org/images/indymedia_die-in_8-31-04a.jpg)
-
"Larry has done a fine job of posting a link to the text of a statute that attacks freedom of speech. If you can't read or understand that text, if you can't figure out how that statute can inhibit or penalize the exercise of free speech, then I would say that is your problem, there is nothing that I or anyone else in the group can do to get you to admit that - - in all simplicity - - the statute says what it says and permits what it permits."
[][][][][][][][][][][][[][][][][][][][][][][][][]
So you couldn't see it either?
-
I would expect my trial , were I ever to fall into the hands of the Al Quieda, to be short and the sentance would be to shorten my stature by a head.
Do you really consider her abettment amd mine to be equivelent?
If I fell into the hands of Al Queda I would argue that those killings I have abetted were scumbags ?
This would lighten my sentence?
Are you suggesting we should base how we punish someone on how al-Qaeda would punish someone? Maybe you're not suggesting that, but I am having trouble understanding why how al-Qaeda might treat you has any bearing how the American courts should treat Lynne Stewart.
Well, if her action was really equivelent to assistance of the enemy in its war effort , then her sentance is rediculously light , You may not think that her action was treason but MT seems to think it was.
\/
Re: U.S. Attorney Gets 28 months Prison For Aiding terrorist.
« Reply #6 on: October 17, 2006, 09:31:50 PM »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<Is my question hard to answer?>>
Evidently not, since you just answered it yourself.
If her phone call to Egypt resulted in anyone getting killed, they would be people who, in the service of the cause that she supports, should have been killed.
Just as you enthusiastically support the killing of the enemies of your cause, so she (I would presume) with equal enthusiasm would support the killing of the enemies of hers.
-
Well, if her action was really equivelent to assistance of the enemy in its war effort , then her sentance is rediculously light , You may not think that her action was treason but MT seems to think it was.
Okay, but what has that to do with how al-Qaeda might treat you?
-
Do you suppose that a case could be made on the charges of blocking traffic?
Would it were that more people had such conviction.
-
<<And this conversation came to this turn when I asked for the wording in the new law signed by Bush that eliminates habeas corpus. I have yet to see that quote presented here by those who purport it's existence.>>
See, that is exactly the kind of bogus argument the Right excels at. THEY set the standard (in this case, "eliminating habeas corpus") and then "challenge" any critics of the Bush administration to prove that their new law "eliminates habeas corpus." So unless Bush administration supporters were dumb enough to insert an actual clause in the legislation something like "This Act hereby nullifies and abolishes for all time the right of habeas corpus and any and all similar rights, privileges and immunities formerly blah blah blah," they will then go into collective orgasm over the fact that the person they "challenged" failed to find a law that actually eliminates habeas corpus.
The common sense accessible to any twelve-year-old should tell you that a law can severely restrict basic freedoms, deprive a citizen of all the basic protections of habeas corpus, and yet not explicitly say that habeas corpus has been abolished. This is why idiotic challenges of this nature must be avoided. It is sufficient to demonstrate to any fair minded person that the Bush administration strips basic rights from citizens and takes the country a giant step closer to a police state by referring specifically to specific legislation as it actually is, rather than set out on the quixotic mission (set by the very rightwing fascists who have attacked the basic Constitutional freedoms) to find a non-existent abolition of habeas corpus in so many words.
These demonstrations will of course NEVER convince the right wing of anything they don't want to be convinced of, but to anyone whose mind isn't set in concrete, they should be sufficient proof of the facts.
-
THEY set the standard (in this case, "eliminating habeas corpus") and then "challenge" any critics of the Bush administration to prove that their new law "eliminates habeas corpus."
Who set the standard?
I just asked Larry to show what part of the new law eliminates habeas corpus. The only response was a list of partisan blogs that also made the same claim, and as far as I can tell, made no attempt to back it up with anything other than their say-so.
Although, critical thinker that you are, I wouldn't mind seeing you attempt to demonstrate what part of the law eliminates habeas corpus.
-
<<Naaa, the convincing part is when you actually claim a Bush lie, I'm able to torpedo it out of the water with the actual facts. Done it many a time. I have no problem doing it some more. >>
Actually, you haven't done it once. But don't let a simple fact get in the way of your ranting bullshit.
<< I get great pleasure out of myself>>
sirs, I would not want to get into a debate with you about what gives you pleasure. You're the sole acknowledged expert in that field.
I take a lot of time and trouble to demolish bullshit from conservative sites, line by line if I have to.
<<Oh, I concede you absolutely get very wordy in your warped OPINIONS of why you believe the facts are not actually the facts. >>
Thank you. It is a somewhat different technique than dismissing a post as "boatload of lies" or making the unsupported claim that "I torpedoed it out of the water," and somewhat more difficult to learn. It's called "debate."
<< Your perfection of moral relatavism and rationalization is perhaps unmatched>>
Oh no, it's overmatched by the Bush administration and its supporters. I won't go back over the numerous examples of their moral relativism that I recently posted, but it's something that's been noted and commented upon in every corner of the globe. Younger followers of the Bush administration might be forgiven for believing that they invented moral relativism.
<<ROFL, as opposed to finding 1 big nebulous Bush lied web site, and claim "taa daaaa" >>
Maybe you should look up the definition of a big word such as "nebulous" before using it. There was nothing at all nebulous about the "Bush Lies" website, in fact the reason I posted it was its specificity in identifying precisely, by actual words, date and context of each and every Bush lie. And you know, credit where credit is due and all that - - there were so many Bush lies to be documented.
<<But to placate the masses, by all means, initiate another thread....title it, Bush lie on Iraq #1. Make it a goodie. >>
Nah. Bin there. Done that. Pretend all you like that it's "insubstantial" or "nebulous" or whatever your flavour of the month happens to be. It has Bush nailed. Your two-bit adjectives can't change the facts and logic of the site, but of course it's your choice whether you want to make an honest admission that they nailed Bush or continue to blather on about how meaningless and false the whole thing is and how many times you've "torpedoed it right out of the water." Dream on, sirs.
<<Then when I have some time, either myself or any other rationally minded person, will yet again show it for the lie of an accusation that it is>>
Don't bother. It would be easier for me to dredge through the archives and find all the bullshit you've previously posted in your frantic efforts to debunk known facts.
-
<<Who set the standard?
<<I just asked Larry to show what part of the new law eliminates habeas corpus.>>
There ya go. Wasn't such a hard question to answer after all, was it?
-
<<Naaa, the convincing part is when you actually claim a Bush lie, I'm able to torpedo it out of the water with the actual facts. Done it many a time. I have no problem doing it some more. >>
Actually, you haven't done it once. But don't let a simple fact get in the way of your ranting bullshit.
Ignorance must be bliss in your universe
<<But to placate the masses, by all means, initiate another thread....title it, Bush lie on Iraq #1. Make it a goodie. >>
Nah.
<<Then when I have some time, either myself or any other rationally minded person, will yet again show it for the lie of an accusation that it is>>
Don't bother.
Didn't think so. Proabably a smart move
-
"It is sufficient to demonstrate to any fair minded person that the Bush administration strips basic rights from citizens..."
Yes it would be .
Go on ahead and do that.
-
There ya go. Wasn't such a hard question to answer after all, was it?
Must be, because you still haven't shown who set the standard of "eliminating habeas corpus". It was, after all, not a phrase that I used initially. I believe it was introduced by Larry - hardly a rightist by any stretch. I'm just trying to get someone to show where in the law that is accomplished.
-
There ya go. Wasn't such a hard question to answer after all, was it?
Must be, because you still haven't shown who set the standard of "eliminating habeas corpus". It was, after all, not a phrase that I used initially. I believe it was introduced by Larry - hardly a rightist by any stretch. I'm just trying to get someone to show where in the law that is accomplished.
It's "nuance" Ami. It doesn't actually exist, and for apparent righties, we're claiming we need to see actual wording of its demise vs simply requesting examples of such
-
<<Ignorance must be bliss in your universe>>
If it were, you'd be kicking down the door to get in.
<<Probably a smart move>> [my telling sirs not to bother gathering "proof" that Bush never lied]
Well, I was only trying to help you. If a guy's toilet is clogged and his apartment fills up with shit, when he runs out the door with a shovel, screaming "Gotta get more shit!" you try to let him know, gently, that he doesn't really need more shit. I tried, sirs. God knows, I tried.
-
<<Probably a smart move>> [my telling sirs not to bother gathering "proof" that Bush never lied]
Well, I was only trying to help you. If a guy's toilet is clogged and his apartment fills up with shit, when he runs out the door with a shovel, screaming "Gotta get more shit!" you try to let him know, gently, that he doesn't really need more shit. I tried, sirs. God knows, I tried.
No, actually the smart move was you not showing for everyone to see AGAIN, how feeble the Bush lied us into war lies are so easily debunked. Your example of "tried" was again to point at some asanine completely unobjective Bushlied web site and claim victory. Gave you a perfect forum to put me in my place, and the best you can do is hichschool insults and "nah". That desperate blackhole "Bush lied" mantra simply got a bit blacker. We do appreciate your efforts though
-
<<No, actually the smart move was you not showing for everyone to see AGAIN, how feeble the Bush lied us into war lies are so easily debunked. >>
Well, that would all be very true except that (a) there's nothing "feeble" about Bush lying the country into a war because that is EXACTLY what happened, and (b) you can't "debunk" the statement that Bush lied America into a war any more than you can "debunk" the statement that Germany lost WWII. Wow! To think you were that close to the truth.
<<Your example of "tried" was again to point at some asanine completely unobjective Bushlied web site and claim victory. >>
Oh, now I see. And the web site was "asinine" and "completely unobjective" because . . .? Oh, yeah, of course: because you say it is.
<<the best you can do is hichschool insults and "nah". >>
Gee, I'm sorry. I was only trying to be like you.
<<That desperate blackhole "Bush lied" mantra simply got a bit blacker.>>
Hey, not bad. "Desperate blackhole" IS a bit more creative than "asinine" and "completely unobjective." When your only argument against a fact-packed website is to call it names, you can't have too many different names at your disposal.
<<We do appreciate your efforts though>>
Somehow, I'm not entirely certain as to the sincerity of that last remark. I'll take it at face value, though. You're welcome.
-
<<No, actually the smart move was you not showing for everyone to see AGAIN, how feeble the Bush lied us into war lies are so easily debunked. >>
Well, that would all be very true except that (a) there's nothing "feeble" about Bush lying the country into a war because that is EXACTLY what happened, and (b) you can't "debunk" the statement that Bush lied America into a war any more than you can "debunk" the statement that Germany lost WWII. Wow! To think you were that close to the truth.....yada, rant, blather
And with all those neurons firing to produce such a diatribe, not one was used to produce a non refuted Bush lie. Just more of Tee says so, and that's final. At least your consistent Tee ;D
-
<<And with all those neurons firing to produce such a diatribe, not one was used to produce a non refuted Bush lie. Just more of Tee says so, and that's final. At least your consistent Tee >>
No, actually, sirs, the "Bush Lied" web-site (one of many) which I gave you in fact DID have numerous well-documented lies told by Bush and members of his cabinet. But you knew that. I guess you must have forgotten, huh?
-
<<And with all those neurons firing to produce such a diatribe, not one was used to produce a non refuted Bush lie. Just more of Tee says so, and that's final. At least your consistent Tee >>
No, actually, sirs, the "Bush Lied" web-site (one of many) which I gave you in fact DID have numerous well-documented lies told by Bush and members of his cabinet. But you knew that. I guess you must have forgotten, huh?
And with just those few neurons firing this time around, again not one was used to produce a non refuted Bush lie, just another reference to the almighty, all powerful, all everything Bush-lied web site. Apparently Tee does't even have the ability to copy & paste even 1 supposed Bush lied us into the war lie, that we could then blow out of the water. Again, perhaps that's a smart move on his part as well.
You'd think, that this forum, that BT has so helped to maintain, and messers Js, Chicky, & Plane help manage, and used to exemplarary form by folks like Prince & the Professor, where we can post ideas, & debate the merits of allegations, is just too difficult a concept for some to adhere to, and instead simply belly-ache that such an accusations are to be taken at face value, because hey, they said so, and there's a web site that says so as well.
-
<<You'd think, that this forum, that BT has so helped to maintain, and messers Js, Chicky, & Plane help manage, and used to exemplarary form by folks like Prince & the Professor, where we can post ideas, & debate the merits of allegations, is just too difficult a concept for some to adhere to, and instead simply belly-ache that such an accusations are to be taken at face value, because hey, they said so, and there's a web site that says so as well. >>
Actually, sirs, and again I apologize for bringing a little breath of reality into your hysterical fantasizing, in addition to the web-sites that I referred to, I actually DID post the lies that Bush and his cabinet told to the American people, as well as the reasons why they had to be lies and not just honest mistakes. Those posts also appear to have vanished into your memory hole, because now you are trying to imply that the ONLY support of the "Bush Lied" story that I ever posted was in the form of links to a "Bush lied" Website. That also, like 99% of everything else you post, is simply untrue.
I don't know who you think you are fooling with all your bullshit, but it ain't me.
-
<<And with all those neurons firing to produce such a diatribe, not one was used to produce a non refuted Bush lie. Just more of Tee says so, and that's final. At least your consistent Tee >>
No, actually, sirs, the "Bush Lied" web-site (one of many) which I gave you in fact DID have numerous well-documented lies told by Bush and members of his cabinet. But you knew that. I guess you must have forgotten, huh?
Resolved , Bush is often accused of Lieing.
Resolved , lots of accusations are just as good as a few proofs?
-
<<You'd think, that this forum, that BT has so helped to maintain, and messers Js, Chicky, & Plane help manage, and used to exemplarary form by folks like Prince & the Professor, where we can post ideas, & debate the merits of allegations, is just too difficult a concept for some to adhere to, and instead simply belly-ache that such an accusations are to be taken at face value, because hey, they said so, and there's a web site that says so as well. >>
Actually, sirs, and again I apologize for bringing a little breath of reality into your hysterical fantasizing, in addition to the web-sites that I referred to, I actually DID post the lies that Bush and his cabinet told to the American people, as well as the reasons why they had to be lies and not just honest mistakes. Those posts also appear to have vanished into your memory hole, because now you are trying to imply that the ONLY support of the "Bush Lied" story that I ever posted was in the form of links to a "Bush lied" Website. That also, like 99% of everything else you post, is simply untrue. I don't know who you think you are fooling with all your bullshit, but it ain't me.
Actually Tee, your lying, or more so grossly disorting the truth. Actually Tee, the challenge was to provide 1 lie, not point to a bogus Bush lied web site and say "see, he lied". Actually Tee, the forum was designed especially for the challenge I've repeatedly given you that you continue to ignore (for the right reasons of course), as your lies would again be shown to be what they are.
And actually Tee, the only one your fooling here is yourself.
-
<<Actually Tee, your lying, or more so grossly disorting the truth.>>
No I am not lying or distorting anything. I actually posted numerous examples of Bush's many lies AND pointed out web sites where they were collected.
<< Actually Tee, the challenge was to provide 1 lie, not point to a bogus Bush lied web site and say "see, he lied". >>
Well, in that case, I've had multiple successes because I've pointed out quite a few of his lies. And since the web site that I pointed out to you were quite meticulous in documenting the lies of the "President" and his administration, it could hardly be called a "bogus" web site. Although I can see where it would be a great irritation to any Bush fan.
<< Actually Tee, the forum was designed especially for the challenge I've repeatedly given you that you continue to ignore (for the right reasons of course), as your lies would again be shown to be what they are.>>
I've ignored the challenge by posting the actual lies AND the web sites where the lies are collected? Yeah, right, sirs. My "lies" would again be shown to be what they are? Was "again" your little attempt at humour, or do you honestly believe you've even ONCE demonstrated that anything I said was false?
<<And actually Tee, the only one your fooling here is yourself. >>
That Bush is a liar? I tell ya, sirs, you're one of the rapidly dwindling few in America that believe otherwise. In the face of overwhelming evidence, I might add. So I guess what you're telling me is that somebody else fooled all those other folks, while I fooled nobody? You're saying that whereas others are a huge success at fooling the people into believing that poor George lied to them, I myself am a miserable failure at it? That's a harsh verdict, sirs, but I guess I'll have to live with it.
-
<<Actually Tee, your lying, or more so grossly disorting the truth.>>
No I am not lying or distorting anything. I actually posted numerous examples of Bush's many lies AND pointed out web sites where they were collected.
<< Actually Tee, the challenge was to provide 1 lie, not point to a bogus Bush lied web site and say "see, he lied". >>
Well, in that case, I've had multiple successes because I've pointed out quite a few of his lies.
That's strange, I've looked thru-out this thread, and one is no where to be found. I've looked at several other threads, and again no where is one to be found. Much like your current MO, a whole ton of "I said so", with no validity behind it. You know what I did find? A whole ton of "Bush lied" claims, and the ever so infamous innuendo of how obvious it is that he lied. Perfect forum right here for you to stand up and say something along the lines of:
"Ok, you RW Bush loving idiot. He lied about X, and this is how he lied about X. Now, refute that"
Even that wouldn't have taken any more neurons to process than your "nah" to the challange you were given. But no, it's just not possible is it. Can't be having debate in a debate forum. Need to claim victory, insult the opponent, and hit enter. You're getting fairly good at the tactic, though it remains as meritless as the rest of your diatribes. Pity
-
Oh good greif.
What is that website again?
-
Sirs, Bush told lie after lie for six years. But rather than debate with a closed mind, I will say just this. Bush was wrong and even Bush himself has confess to that.
-
Sirs, Bush told lie after lie for six years. But rather than debate with a closed mind, I will say just this. Bush was wrong and even Bush himself has confess to that.
ROFL Priceless
-
<<Oh good greif.
<<What is that website again>>
It isn't one website, there's dozens of them. I can't even remember which particular ones I posted, there are so many and they all refer more or less to the same pack of lies. Just go to Google and search Bush Lied Lies and you will come up with thousands of sites devoted to his lies. The better ones are near the top of the search and have titles like Bush Lies or 100 Bush Lies. The really big lie, of course, is the Weapons of Mass Destruction/Saddam Failed to Account/Saddam Kicked Out the Inspectors/The Need to Act Now is Urgen/Can't Wait Longer lie or part or parts of it, and then there's lots of smaller lies and some of the sites also have the big pre-Presidential lie to SEC investigators about Bush's insider trading (lying to the SEC being the same offence for which Martha Stewart did jail time.)
-
Just go to Google and search Bush Lied Lies and you will come up with thousands of sites devoted to his lies.
(http://mario.silent-tower.org/mtlies.bmp)
-
<<Oh good greif.
<<What is that website again>>
It isn't one website, there's dozens of them. I can't even remember which particular ones I posted, there are so many and they all refer more or less to the same pack of lies. Just go to Google and search Bush Lied Lies and you will come up with thousands of sites devoted to his lies. The better ones are near the top of the search and have titles like Bush Lies or 100 Bush Lies. The really big lie, of course, is the Weapons of Mass Destruction/Saddam Failed to Account/Saddam Kicked Out the Inspectors/The Need to Act Now is Urgen/Can't Wait Longer lie or part or parts of it, and then there's lots of smaller lies and some of the sites also have the big pre-Presidential lie to SEC investigators about Bush's insider trading (lying to the SEC being the same offence for which Martha Stewart did jail time.)
All right , will this web site do?
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/mar2003/bush-m20.shtml
Lie No. 2: “For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war.â€
The US-led United Nations regime of sanctions against Iraq, combined with “no-fly†zones and provocative weapons inspections, is one of brutal oppression. The deliberate withholding of food, medical supplies and other vital necessities is responsible for the death of more than a million Iraqis, half of them children. Two UN officials who headed the oil-for-food program resigned in protest over the conditions created in Iraq by the sanctions. The CIA used the inspectors as a front, infiltrating agents into UNSCOM, the original inspections program. The CIA’s aim was to spy on Iraq’s top officials and target Saddam Hussein for assassination.
Elesewhere on our own website this was posted;
"PajamasMedia: The Lancet study uses a baseline mortality rate (the rate during Saddam years) of 5.5/1000 – almost half of the mortality rate of Europe. The mortality rate in the EU is 10.10/1000. Given Europe’s excellent health care, public health infrastructure and, lack of war in the past 60 years, how is it possible that Iraq’s baseline is half that of the EU? Are you simply relying on pre-war publications or was the baseline itself generated by interviews with random clusters?"
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
Ok so , if you beleive one must you disbeleive the other?
I think I see the Socialist website claiming that Bush was likeing about the deaths caused by the sanctions , but the Doctor and Pajamas establish that the death rate in Iraq was not so bad during the sanctions at all.
This web site has nineteen more "lies" it is complaining about , but their credibility is blasted with one careless lie in accuseing Bush with thinhgs that are not so, why adress any other on their list when they have thrown their credibility away on one?
-
:D
-
I understand the first part of your post, plane, but not the second.
The first part plainly exposes one of Bush's many lies. The "patient and honourable" U.S. approach, which actually killed a million Iraqis, half of them children due to embargo.
The second part seems to be a complaint aimed at the baseline study "of the Saddam years" on which the million Iraqi deaths were calculated. But the pre-embargo AND the embargo years were both "Saddam years" so perhaps this baseline was for comparison with the post-Saddam years?
Anyway, your reasoning appears to be: because the site's credibility is destroyed by this "baseline issue" (which I don't think you quoted properly - - perhaps some paragraphs were lost from your post) therefore you can't believe anything else on that site.
This is like a teacher reasoning: because the kid got one question wrong on the test, all his other answers must be wrong too, so I'll just give him a big fat zero.
If any teacher marked test papers like that, he'd be flat out on his ass in less time than it takes to prepare this post. (Theoretically, of course: if he belonged to a teachers' union, he'd probably be litigating his dismissal until the school board caved and made him principal.)
Nevertheless, your reasoning and logic are hereby assigned a failing mark of "F minus." That was one of the worst fucking arguments I've ever seen you come up with, and that's saying something.
-
I am not surprised you did not understand.
Lets cover it slowly.
It was Saddam that was lieing, the Sanctions did not kill a million Iriquis , if they had the death rate would have been above the rate at present .
The Math is not hard, a million vs .6 million .
All that is really proven by this is that one or the other is wrong .
Take your pick.
This particular site was from a socialist organisation , I thought you might like them.
In a long list of accusations why is it required that each one be disproven?
You might think it was nessacery that each one be actually proven.
Exausting either way.
This is why I was asking you to pick your favoriate , one or two that can represent the rest.
If you just point to a very long list , I shall insist on disproveing the easyest one on the list , since you have allowed me to choose.
-
I am not surprised you did not understand.
In a long list of accusations why is it required that each one be disproven? You might think it was nessacery that each one be actually proven. Exausting either way. This is why I was asking you to pick your favoriate , one or two that can represent the rest. If you just point to a very long list , I shall insist on disproveing the easyest one on the list , since you have allowed me to choose.
Ooooooh, very shrewd and impressive Plane 8)
-
<<It was Saddam that was lieing, the Sanctions did not kill a million Iriquis , if they had the death rate would have been above the rate at present .>>
That's incomprehensible too. "The death rate?" What death rate for what year are you talking about and what does the present death rate have to do with anything?
<<The Math is not hard, a million vs .6 million >>
A million what? when? where? Point six million what? when? where? You remind me of the announcer in the Flying Purple People Eater, giving out the ball scores: "Here are the ball scores, four to three, six to two and eight to one."
<<In a long list of accusations why is it required that each one be disproven?>>
That's not the point. The point is how can you disprove one by disproving another? It would be like marking all the test questions wrong because one was wrong. I don't think you'd appreciate it if your own exams were marked that way.
-
Plane: "Do you suppose that a case could be made on the charges of blocking traffic?"
I would hope so. If I was on the way to work and was late due to this, I would hope they were at least cited? Were they, Plane?
-
JS: Quote
Do you suppose that a case could be made on the charges of blocking traffic?
Would it were that more people had such conviction."
All well and good and if I had a case I believe needed to be made in this way, then I would certainly do it. BUT, you must be willing to take your medicine when or if the time comes as well, wouldn't you agree? The disciples in the Bible, for example, took the heat for their convictions and not once whined about it.
I have participated in anti-seal hunting ventures in the past. I believed in my cause (still do), just like those folks laying down on thestreet.. I was willing to take my medicine if needed. I hope they were as well. Does anyone know what happened here?
-
That's not the point. The point is how can you disprove one by disproving another? It would be like marking all the test questions wrong because one was wrong. I don't think you'd appreciate it if your own exams were marked that way.
The point is that you were asked to present one or two of the best to be examined and discussed. You demurred, and instead said to take one of our own from "thousands" documented on the web.
If you would care to present some, then you couldn't complain about the ones chosen.
A better comparison would be a student (you, in this case) turns in a blank sheet to the teacher, saying "I know the answers to all the questions. Just fill in the sheet yourself." Then wonders why he got a failing grade.
-
I would hope so. If I was on the way to work and was late due to this, I would hope they were at least cited? Were they, Plane?
Actually, they weren't. Which was the justification for MT to claim that they were arrested solely because they complained about the administration. They weren't charged, so obviously, they weren't doing anything wrong.
<sarcasm>
Couldn't have been that the cops were being lenient, or wanted to save themselves some paperwork for a relatively petty offense. Nah. They're all just Bush flunkies, and those photos were obviously faked.
</sarcasm>
-
<<Oh good greif.
<<What is that website again>>
It isn't one website, there's dozens of them. I can't even remember which particular ones I posted, there are so many and they all refer more or less to the same pack of lies. Just go to Google and search Bush Lied Lies and you will come up with thousands of sites devoted to his lies. The better ones are near the top of the search and have titles like Bush Lies or 100 Bush Lies. The really big lie, of course, is the Weapons of Mass Destruction/Saddam Failed to Account/Saddam Kicked Out the Inspectors/The Need to Act Now is Urgen/Can't Wait Longer lie or part or parts of it, and then there's lots of smaller lies and some of the sites also have the big pre-Presidential lie to SEC investigators about Bush's insider trading (lying to the SEC being the same offence for which Martha Stewart did jail time.)
Here's one:
Home > Claim vs Fact
This new database charts conservatives' dishonesty and compares it with the truth. Each conservative quote will be matched against well-documented facts, so users can get a more accurate picture of the issues. And we need your help. If we're missing a lie or distortion you know of, please submit an entry. If it checks out, we will gladly add it to the database.
Showing 1-9 of 9 records (1 pages), records per page.
Topic: Iraq - Pre-Invasion
Speaker: Bush, George - President
Date: 3/6/2003
Quote/Claim:
"No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for [a U.N.] vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam. [Source: White House Web site]"
Fact:
"At a National Security Council meeting convened at the White House at 8:55 a.m., Bush finalized the decision to withdraw the resolution from consideration and prepared to deliver an address to the nation that had already been written. - Washington Post, 3/18/03"
Reference Reference
Topic: Iraq - Pre-Invasion
Speaker: Bush, George - President
Date: 3/6/2003
Quote/Claim:
"I've not made up our mind about military action. Hopefully, this can be done peacefully. Hopefully, that as a result of the pressure that we have placed -- and others have placed -- that Saddam will disarm and/or leave the country. [Source: White House Web site]"
Fact:
"The inspections are not getting us there, the president said, getting down to business. The U.N. inspectors were just sort of stumbling around, and Hussein was showing no intention of real compliance. 'I really think I'm going to have to do this.' The president said he had made up his mind on war. The United States should go to war. - 1/13/04, from Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward, reprinted in Washington Post, 4/18/04 "
Reference Reference
Topic: Iraq - Pre-Invasion
Speaker: Bush, George - President
Date: 3/6/2003
Quote/Claim:
"No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. [Source: White House Web site]"
Fact:
"On March 17, 2003, with a possible resolution waiting in the wings, Bush announced he would not call for a vote, saying, 'The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours.' - Slate, 9/23/03"
Reference Reference
Topic: Iraq - Pre-Invasion
Speaker: Bush, George - President
Date: 2/8/2004
Quote/Claim:
"The thing about the Vietnam War that troubles me, as I look back, was it was a political war. We had politicians making military decisions. And it's lessons that any president must learn, and that is to the set the goal and the objective and allow the military to come up with the plans to achieve that objective. And those are essential lessons to be learned from the Vietnam War. [Source: Meet the Press transcript]"
Fact:
"Donald Rumsfeld has become the Iraq conflict's McNamara. His second-guessing of the deployment orders in the months before the fighting started is being blamed by retired and serving officers alike for the thinly protected 300-mile supply lines on which US troops are now depending. - Guardian, 3/31/03"
Reference Reference
Topic: Iraq - Pre-Invasion
Speaker: Bush, George - President
Date: 12/28/2001
Quote/Claim:
"I'm right now focused on the military operations in Afghanistan, [Source: White House Web site]"
Fact:
"Following an important meeting on Iraq war planning in late 2001, President Bush told the public that the discussions were about Afghanistan. He made no mention afterward about Iraq even though that was the real focus of the session at his ranch. - AP, 4/18/04"
Reference Reference
Topic: Iraq - Pre-Invasion
Speaker: Bush, George - President
Date: 12/15/2003
Quote/Claim:
"In Iraq, there was a lot of diplomacy that took place before there was any military action. [Source: White House Web site]"
Fact:
"Time Magazine reports that as early as March, 2002, President Bush showed little interest in debating what to do about Saddam. Instead, he became notably animated, according to one person in the room, used a vulgar epithet to refer to Saddam and concluded with four words that left no one in doubt about Bush's intentions: 'We're taking him out.' - Time, 5/5/02
"
Reference Reference
Topic: Iraq - Pre-Invasion
Speaker: Bush, George - President
Date: 11/4/2003
Quote/Claim:
"[Saddam Hussein] is no longer threatening people.†[Source: White House Web site]"
Fact:
"At the time of this statement, the New York Times reported, Saddam Hussein may be playing a significant role in coordinating and directing attacks by his loyalists against American forces in Iraq, senior American officials said.†- NY Times, 10/31/03"
Reference Reference
Topic: Iraq - Pre-Invasion
Speaker: Bush, George - President
Date: 10/22/2003
Quote/Claim:
"I made it clear that a [diplomatic] process had gone on way before I made the decision to use military force.†[Source: White House Web site]"
Fact:
"According to Bush’s State Department Director of Policy and Planning Richard Haas, the decision to go to war had been made by July of 2002 – 8 months before the invasion. When asked whether there was a particular moment when he realized war in Iraq was definite, Haas said, The moment was the first week of July (2002), when I had a meeting with Condi…She said, essentially, that that decision's been made, don't waste your breath.†- New Yorker, 3/31/03
Time reported in May (2002) that in late March of 2002 Vice President Dick Cheney told Senators The question was no longer if the U.S. would attack Iraq...The only question was when. - Time, 5/6/02 "
Reference Reference
Topic: Iraq - Pre-Invasion
Speaker: Bush, George - President
Date: 10/17/2003
Quote/Claim:
"The force must be strong enough so that the mission can be accomplished. [Source: White House Web site]"
Fact:
"According to testimony from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 10/16/03 the Bush Administration had deployed 1 soldier for every 189 people in Iraq, and 1 soldier for every 1,913 people in Afghanistan. Both were dramatically worse ratios than Kosovo (1 per 48), Bosnia (1 per 58) and East Timor (1 per 86)--the deployments of the Clinton years which Bush maligned during his campaign. "
Reference Reference
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/apps/custom/cap/findorg.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=124702&lftnav=claimvsfact
NOTE: you have to go to the link I listed above in order for the links to work. The links go to various sources: whitehouse.gov, MSNBC, etc.
-
<<The point is that you were asked to present one or two of the best to be examined and discussed. You demurred, and instead said to take one of our own from "thousands" documented on the web.
<<If you would care to present some, then you couldn't complain about the ones chosen.>>
You're totally out to lunch. I'm not complaining about anything. plane picked what he picked, gave it his best, I reviewed his effort and tore it to shreds. I was delighted that I was able to demolish the attack on a "Bush Lie" chosen at random by the other side.
<<A better comparison would be a student (you, in this case) turns in a blank sheet to the teacher, saying "I know the answers to all the questions. Just fill in the sheet yourself." Then wonders why he got a failing grade.>>
How would that be a better comparison? It doesn't bear the remotest resemblance to what happened. I had (foolishly, perhaps) vouched for ALL the answers on the sheet. plane asked for a web-site, followed my directions, picked a site, chose (as I had allowed him to do) any one of the literally dozens of Bush lies that the site could have contained, and then proceeded to find that that the site's allegations that one lie was a lie were wrong, not because of any intrinsic error in the reasoning about it, but because of an alleged error the site made in dealing with another Bush lie. Far from handing in a blank sheet, I had given plane a sheet with many answers, of which he looked at two, decided that since one of the two questions was erroneously answered, the other one must also have been wrong.
-
<<The point is that you were asked to present one or two of the best to be examined and discussed. You demurred, and instead said to take one of our own from "thousands" documented on the web.
<<If you would care to present some, then you couldn't complain about the ones chosen.>>
You're totally out to lunch. I'm not complaining about anything. plane picked what he picked, gave it his best, I reviewed his effort and tore it to shreds. I was delighted that I was able to demolish the attack on a "Bush Lie" chosen at random by the other side.
<<A better comparison would be a student (you, in this case) turns in a blank sheet to the teacher, saying "I know the answers to all the questions. Just fill in the sheet yourself." Then wonders why he got a failing grade.>>
How would that be a better comparison? It doesn't bear the remotest resemblance to what happened. I had (foolishly, perhaps) vouched for ALL the answers on the sheet. plane asked for a web-site, followed my directions, picked a site, chose (as I had allowed him to do) any one of the literally dozens of Bush lies that the site could have contained, and then proceeded to find that that the site's allegations that one lie was a lie were wrong, not because of any intrinsic error in the reasoning about it, but because of an alleged error the site made in dealing with another Bush lie. Far from handing in a blank sheet, I had given plane a sheet with many answers, of which he looked at two, decided that since one of the two questions was erroneously answered, the other one must also have been wrong.
So you maintain that both these two things are true.
That in the years before the invasion of Iraq in 2003 the death rate for Iriquis was so low that it was lower than any EU country.
That in the years of the sanctions almost twice as many Iriquis die due to the sanctions as have died due to the invasion.
These seem to be incompatible assertions . How do you accept them both?
-
I would hope so. If I was on the way to work and was late due to this, I would hope they were at least cited? Were they, Plane?
Actually, they weren't. Which was the justification for MT to claim that they were arrested solely because they complained about the administration. They weren't charged, so obviously, they weren't doing anything wrong.
<sarcasm>
Couldn't have been that the cops were being lenient, or wanted to save themselves some paperwork for a relatively petty offense. Nah. They're all just Bush flunkies, and those photos were obviously faked.
</sarcasm>
http://www.warresisters.org/RNC_CD.htm
This is the cite cited by MT in Post #33 that is where I found the picture of a "Die In".
Those locked up after this were supposedly being persecuted for haveing said something uncomplementary about the president.
Not Blocking traffic , an offence of which they are obviously innocent.
-
So you maintain that both these two things are true.
That in the years before the invasion of Iraq in 2003 the death rate for Iriquis was so low that it was lower than any EU country.
That in the years of the sanctions almost twice as many Iriquis die due to the sanctions as have died due to the invasion.
These seem to be incompatible assertions . How do you accept them both?
plane, no offence, but while you may know what you're talking about, I don't have a clue. I already told you that I didn't know what your numbers were referring to, only that you seemed to be attacking a certain base-line on the basis of an article in Pyjamas Media and when I checked the article, it was not what you claimed it to be - - I mean the attack on the base-line was as you quoted in your post, but then the objections were answered satisfactorily by the author of the post.
If you ever want to take the time and trouble to lay out a clear statement of what mortality rates are alleged for what years, and by whom, and where you think the incompatiblity lies, and why, I'll be happy to look at it and let you know what I think, but until you lay down the basic groundwork, I'm afraid anything I could say in response to your questions would be a good example of the GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) Principle.
-
" I'm afraid anything I could say in response to your questions would be a good example of the GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) Principle."
This is the complete explanation of your beleif that Bush has been lieing.
take it is steps.
Are the People of Iraq dieing at a higher rate now than they were in the period between 1994- 2002?
If so then the Pajama Site is more correct.
Are people dieing at a lower rate during the period since the 2003 invasion of Iraq to the present than they were during the sanctions period?
If they are then the Socialist party site is more correct.
It seems impossible that both of these things are correct , I prefer the Pajama site because it seems to have a more carefull method.